Rename std.string.toStringz?

Jonathan M Davis jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Jun 25 18:53:45 PDT 2011


On 2011-06-25 18:29, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/25/2011 5:31 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > So, while the majority have indicated in the past renaming functions in
> > Phobos to be properly camelcased is worth breaking code in the general
> > case, there is no such consensus in this particular case, so toStringz
> > is sticking around.
> 
> There's a large community using D that doesn't necessarily participate in
> ng discussions. I'd like to see more than a simple majority in order to
> rename existing functions (especially ones that have been around a while).
> 
> Breaking existing code really, really annoys people. It drives people away
> from using D as "unstable" - and they'd be right.
> 
> I don't think we can create a viable D community if we break existing code
> every month without really, really good reasons to.

The vote to rename std.string's functions to be properly camelcased was 
virtually unanimous. It wasn't a simple majority. True, that's not the 
entirety of D users out there, but the feelings on this group appear to be 
fairly strong that they want Phobos to be consistent in its function naming. 
And if this group feels that way, then odds are that a fair portion of the 
rest of the D community feels the same way. So, I think that it's worth fixing 
the names - especially if we do it sooner than later. That done, as long as we 
ensure that new code follows the proper naming conventions, then in the long 
run, such changes won't be necessary anymore. If the community here was more 
wishy-washy about such changes (as they were with toStringz), then no, it 
wouldn't be worth making the change. But it's clear that almost everyone on 
this list wants the functions in Phobos to be properly camelcased so that 
their naming is consistent with Phobos' naming conventions. So, changes along 
those lines are being made where it makes sense. Beyond that, I don't think 
that we're doing much in the way of function renaming. Certainly, I don't 
intend to go and rename a bunch of functions just because I don't quite like 
the names. I'm fixing those which are not properly camelcased, because it's 
quite clear that almost everyone here wants that to be done. And all such 
functions are being appropriately deprecated, so code shouldn't be breaking 
right out from under people. And once those functions are fixed, it shouldn't 
be an issue anymore. The problem is that over Phobos' history, it hasn't been 
consistent in naming things, which causes problems for people trying to use it 
- especially newbies. In the long run, it'll be easier to use Phobos (and will 
reflect better on the library) if its functions consistently follow the same 
naming conventions.

So, in general, I agree with you about avoiding breaking code, but in this 
particular case, I think that it's pretty clear that it's worth it.

- Jonathan M Davis


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list